SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Raj) 2539

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ajay Rastogi, J.
Surajmal Jat and others - Appellant
Versus
State and another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3229 of 2009 and 32 other Petitions.
Decided On : 8-12-2009

For the Petitioners:Sarva Shri S.P. Sharma, H.K. Saini, Sandeep Pathak, Anoop Dhand, Satyapal Poshwal, B.M. Sharma, J.K. Yogi, Mukesh Punia, S.K. Singodiya, Tanveer Ahmed, V.K. Sharma, D.N. Yadav, K.C. Sharma, D. Barala, Vijay Yadav, Prahlad Sharma, Virendra Manjhu, R.P. Saini, Mahendra Sharma, Sanjay Rahar, Amardeep Atwal, C.M. Verma, Manju Sharma and Pradeeplata Mathur, Advocates.
For the Respondents: N.A. Naqvi, AAG.

Conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates were not in conformity with the scheme of Rules of 2008 and were therefore quashed.

Headnote:

RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ PRABODHAK SERVICE RULES, 2008 - TEACHING EXPERIENCE - VERIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE - CONDITIONS - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS FOR VERIFICATION OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE HELD TO BE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SCHEME OF RULES, 2008 AND QUASHED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, who had applied for the post of Prabodhak under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 ('Rules of 2008'), challenged the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of their teaching experience certificates. The conditions required the educational institutions to provide information about the applicant's appointment procedure, pay scale, and any breaks in service.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates were not in conformity with the scheme of Rules of 2008. The Court found that the Rules of 2008 only required teaching experience from a recognized institution and did not distinguish between different types of teaching experience, such as ad hoc, urgent temporary, contractual, or regular.

Issues: Whether the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates were valid and in conformity with the scheme of Rules of 2008.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates were not in conformity with the scheme of Rules of 2008 because they supplemented the requirement of eligibility under the Rules of 2008. The Court found that the Rules of 2008 did not distinguish between different types of teaching experience and that the respondents could not impose additional requirements through administrative directions.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners as eligible for appointment to the post of Prabodhak if they had furnished their certificates of five years continuous experience from a recognized institution as required under Rules of 2008.

JUDGMENT

1. - Since bunch of instant petitions involve common controversy raised at the bar, hence are being decided by this order at joint request.

2. In the bunch of instant writ petitions, the question requires for determination by this Court is as to whether the experience certificate of teaching which has been obtained by petitioner from a recognised educational institution can be rejected on the premise that the standard which have been laid down by the respondents in their letter dated 16/06/2008 (Anx.R-2) for verification of experience certificate was not fulfilled.

3. The petitioners herein submitted their application for participation in the selection process initiated by the respondents for the post of Prabodhak which is included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 ('Rules of 2008') in pursuance to an advertisement dated 31/05/2008. It has not been controverted that petitioners fulfilled academic qualifications and have also furnished their teaching experience certificate of recognised educational institution which is one of the condition of eligibility for an applicant to participate in the process initiated by the respondents.

4. Earlier a restriction was imposed by the respondents that the experience certificate which has been furnished by the applicant from a recognised educational institution must be countersigned by an officer of the department in absence whereof they will not be considered to be eligible to participate in the process of selection and at that point of time a bunch of petitions in CWP-5951/2008, Smt. Priti Dixit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected writ petitions were decided on 07/01/2009 and the question with respect to certificate of experience obtained by the applicants also came up for consideration and this Court in para No. 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment referred to (supra), after taking note of the objections raised by respondents, granted liberty to respondents to get the certificate verified from the concerned educational institution and it was held that if it is found to be correct, the same may be countersigned and the applicant may be considered for appointment according to the order of merit if finally found to be suitable.

5. The relevant paragraphs-20, 21 & 22 of the judgment (supra) dealing with the teaching experience certificate either not verified by the District Education Officer or verification was revoked under directions of the Government, are being reproduced here under:-

"20. Many of the writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners on the ground they have gained the requisite experience but the experience certificate given by the school concerned has not been countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer and in absence of counter signature, their candidature has not been considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak.

21. In this regard, this Court deem it proper to direct the respondents to verify the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners from the record of the concerned school and if it is found correct, then the same may be countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer. However, it is made clear that the experience certificate which have been issued by the recognised educational institution or project, can only be considered.

22. In few of the cases, the District Education Officer has countersigned the experience certificate but later on the same has been withdrawn. In such cases also, the respondents are directed to verify the experience of the particular petitioner from the record of the school and if it is found correct, then the same be considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak even the counter signature on the post of Prabodhak even the counter signature has been withdrawn by the District Education Officer."

6. It appears that earlier the applicants were not permitted to participate on the premise that their teaching experience certificate has























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top